141-NLR-NLR-V-23-APPUUHAMY-et-al-v.-AGIDAHAMY.pdf
( «3 )
Present: Bertram C.J.
APPUHAMY et al v. AGIDAHAMY.
301—0. R. Colombo, 78,243.
Court of Requests—Jurisdiction—Action by lessees against lessors andaco-oumer of the lessees—Value of suit.
Where .lessees sued in the Court of Bequest the lessors and aco-owner of the lessors in ejectment nod for damages, alleging thatthe defendants unlawfully disputed plaintiffs’ title-
Held, that tor purposes of jurisdiction the leasehold interest andnot the whole land must be valued.
I
N this action the plaintiffs who are lessees of an undividedfive-twelfths share of a land called Arambewattagewatta and of
a eleven-twelfths share of alandcalledNagahawatta sued their lessors,the first to third defendants and the fourth defendant asa trespasser,alleging wrongful dispossession and praying for restoration topossession and damages. The fourth defendant claimed to beentitled to a one-twenty-seventh share of the land Aiambewattaon a deed executed subsequent to the deed-of lease in favour of theplaintiffs, and alleged in his answer that he appropriated only hisshare of the produce of this land. The Commissioner of Bequests(G. Koch, Esq.) overruled the plea to jurisdiction, and entered judg-ment for plaintiffs.
E. 6. P. <Tayatfleke, for the appellant.
Weerasuriya, for the respondeat.
December 9,1921. Bkbt&am C.J.—
The first point I have to decide in this case is a question of juris-diction. Mr. Jayatiieke takes exception to (he jurisdiction of theCourt of Bequests. The action is brought by certain lessees againsttheir lessors and a co-owner of the lessors, who claims one-twenty-seventh of the whole land* The interest leased to the lessees, thoughdescribed as an undivided interest,is, in foot, a divided one, and theallegation of the lessees in their plaint is that the defendants forciblyand unlawfully disputed the plaintiff’s title as such lessees. 'Thevalue of the lessee’s interest in the land leased is Bs. 240. It is alease for six years, and they have paid Bs. 120, three years* rent inadvance. It is contended by Mr. Jayatiieke that in the circum-stances we have to look not at the value of the plaintiffs’ interest,but at the value of the whole land, and he cites as an authorityfor that proposition the case of Lebbe v. Banda.1 • But the essenceof that judgment is that the action there In question was apossessory action. What my brother De Sampayo said was that1 (1908) 20 N. L. R. 343.
1921.
( 474 )
1901*
Bebtbam
C.J.
Appuhamy
v.
Agidahamy
:t in such a suit neither the title to the land nor the extent of theplaintiffs* interest therein is involved. The suit is based solely onthe fact of possession and whether it be brought by the ownerhimself or by a lessee, the subject-matter is the land.”
It seems to me that this is not a possessory action. As regardsthe defendants, other than the fourth defendant, it is an action bythe lessees against their lessors for their right in the land, and as Ihave said the value of the lessees’ interest is Rs. 240.
With regard to the fourth defendant Mr. Jayatiieke says: “ We aresued as a trespasser. The test in such a case is what is the value ofthe whole land. It is-alleged that I have ousted the plaintiffs fromthe whole land, and, therefore, the value of the whole land must beconsidered.” I do not so read the plaint. The fourth defendant isnot sued as a trespasser with regard to the whole land. He is saidto have unlawfullydisputed the plaintiffs* title as lessees, and thoughhe may have assumed possession of the whole land, what he disputesis.their title in that capacity. It seems to me, therefore, that theinterest in dispute under section 77 of the Courts Ordinance is, asmuch in his case as in that of the defendants, the value of the lease*hold interest and not the whole land in suit. I, therefore, disallowthe objection to jurisdiction*
A further point arises on the appeal. It involves a very smallamount. The fourth defendant appears to have bought in an out-standing interest—that of Juse—the brother of two of the personsfrom whom his mother, the first defendant, acquired a certain por-tion of her interest. There seems good reason to believe that thisinterest is, in fact, outstanding. But it may very weli have beenprescribedagainst. The learned Commissioner,however,fora reasonI am not able to appreciate, declined to allow an issue to be framedfor the determination of the precise interest which the plaintiffshad obtained by their lease. The interest claimed is extremelysmall, and Mr. Weerasuriya at this stage of the case—the leasehaving nearly expired—prefers for the purpose of this action toadmit this interest rather than to let the matter be referred to theCommissioner for the purpose of determining whether it had beenprescribed against. What the judgment gives the plaintiffs is firstdamages at the rate of Be. 50 per crop from December, 1920. Italso gives them an order quieting them in possession of the undividedfive-twelfths share of the land. But ftfr. Weersuriya admits that thedecree must be varied. The order as to damages must be varied bythe addition of the words “ subject so far as the fourth defendant isconcerned to a right to deduct Rs. 3*12 in respect of each crop,”and the order with reference to quiet possession must be made toapply to the first, second, and third defendants only. As therespondents have substantially succeeded, I think they are entitledto the costs of this appeal.
Varied*